We disagree and that is obvious, Charles.
You are taking in a position of not knowing in which you cover up a smaller spot of what is actually knowable.
Let me use the theory of spacetime to explain this. I see you are holding on to it as if it were a fact.
Let's show where Einstein was a genius and where he misplaced spacetime.
Newton's laws worked well but these laws could not explain everything we see about matter. For instance, the peculiar behavior of Mercury is just a tad off.
Einstein was a genius and figured out the theoretical structure to explain this behavior. Simply brilliant. However, and I will say this in my own words, he hung that coat on spacetime.
It does not really matter as long as the theoretical structure is correct. Yet important to note is that spacetime is about matter; it says something about the behavior of matter. So the subject matter for spacetime is not space or time but matter.
Quick conclusion here: we can end up wagging the dog instead of having the dog wag its tail.
Let's investigate further.
---
If we look at the four behaviors planet Earth is involved in, then we can see that not all behaviors are gravity-based. One of the four is not based on gravity.
* Earth's spin
* Earth's revolution around the Sun
* Earth's movement in the circular dance of the Milky Way
* Earth speeding away together with the Milky Way in its singular direction, away from the origin spot.
This fourth motion is the fastest of all motions we are involved in. It is not based on gravity. Rather, it is based on the initial push occurring with the materialization process. I actually call it a catapulting action, but that is for another discussion.
As we know, an action once started and not stopped by anything else will continue forever.
--
As you can see, many scientists are already doing something strange because they make gravity the all-encompassing force of the universe, while that is clearly not the case. They are wagging the dog or at least the butt end of the dog and not just its tail.
The specific behavior of Mercury can be explained by this fourth motion.
---
To bring this back to where we started out, the word God is truly just that, a word. It is not found in the scientific dictionary and so a confrontation between the religious idea and the scientific idea is already improper because these are two distinct languages.
The closest we can get to God in Science is when we use the word Energy. We can even say that energy is directed. Yet to say that there is a Director in that Energy, that is not available in science.
Then, in the religious format, some people use the term Almighty, and that is actually a word that is not based on a correct construction. Meaning, it cannot exist.
The two parts of Almighty are 1 and 1st, and these two parts are from two distinct mathematical backgrounds that cannot be used in combination.
It is a similar mistake to wanting all students on a test to do better than average. It is perhaps a real desire, but it cannot become the truth.
I think the word Almighty got used in the days when most people were still considering many gods. In a discussion between these two very distinct concepts, it would make sense for one person to use the term Almighty to make the other person understand the God in question was not just a God for a specific circumstance or condition.
Long story short, a lot is actually about the structure of things, of words, of circumstances, or facts fitting or not-fitting together.
So back to the first question I asked:
Do you consider matter a result? (Most I know say yes to this question, but you may be the exception).
And additionally, which God are you rejecting? What idea in your mind cannot be.
As mentioned, God is just a word, and one can already use it to point to Energy. It does not get lost, so we have Energy to start out with. Energy cannot be explained (and the quantum fluctuation is just a story some scientists use as a placeholder, but it is not really telling us anything).
